RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03047
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.02
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2C  to  1A,  and  her
reason for discharge be changed from “Personality Disorder”  to  failure  to
adapt.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A personality disorder is a mental health classification for disorders  such
as Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, neither  of  which  can  be  used  to
describe her mental standing  at  the  time  of  her  separation.   She  was
homesick and unable to see all the positive things  the  Air  Force  had  to
offer, and therefore was unable to adapt to  military  life.   But  she  now
knows what to expect.  She should have finished school at the advice of  her
First Sergeant and military training leaders.  When she returned home  after
her discharge, she again realized  her  main  reason  for  joining  the  Air
Force, which was to do something with her life that both she and her  family
could be proud of.  She has disappointed her family, and  let  herself  down
by not striving to reach her full potential.  She would  greatly  appreciate
another opportunity to prove that she is competent,  capable,  and  deserves
to be an airman in the United States Air Force.

The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 October 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for  a  period  of  six  years.   The
applicant completed basic military training and began technical training  in
the Health Services Management Apprentice Course, but was disenrolled on  31
January 2003.

The applicant voluntarily visited and was seen by a  staff  psychiatrist  in
the Mental Health Life Skills Support Center on 22 and 28  January,  and  on
29 January 2003, she was diagnosed as having a mental disorder as  contained
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

The DSM-IV Diagnosis was:

Axis I:     309.9 Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood

A psychological resident recommended the applicant be  discharged  from  the
Air Force based on the above diagnosis.  The examiner assessed the  presence
of a severe adjustment  order,  that  significantly  impaired  the  member’s
ability to function in a military environment, and strongly recommended  the
member’s administrative separation from the military.

On 24 February 2003, the applicant’s commander notified the  applicant  that
he was  recommending  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFPD  36-32  and  AFI  36-3208  because  of  a  mental  health
diagnosis that  significantly  impaired  her  ability  to  function  in  the
military.  The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  and
waived her rights to consult  counsel  and  submit  statements  in  her  own
behalf.

In a legal review of the discharge case file dated  25  February  2003,  the
deputy staff judge advocate  found  the  file  was  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with  an  entry
level  separation.   The  discharge  authority  approved   the   recommended
separation on 3 March 2003, and directed that  the  applicant  be  separated
with  an  entry  level  separation  for  the  reasons  recommended  by   her
commander, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 4 March 2003,  the  applicant  was  given  an  uncharacterized  discharge
because of a personality disorder, with an RE code of 2C  and  a  separation
code of JFF.  RE code 2C is applied in  those  cases  where  the  member  is
involuntarily separated with an uncharacterized discharge.   The  separation
code is directly related to the reason and  authority  for  her  separation.
She had served 4 months and 19 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the submission of this application and the opinion of  the  BCMR
Medical Consultant, on  9  February  2004,  authorities  at  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center administratively corrected the applicant’s record  to  show
the reason for her separation was “Secretarial Authority.”

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  change  in  the
reenlistment code is warranted.  The fact that the applicant is  functioning
well at this time at home confirms her  diagnosis  of  Adjustment  Disorder,
however it does not predict that she will respond well to  the  stresses  of
military operations, deployment, or combat when she is  separated  from  her
familiar surroundings and usual support system of family and  friends.   Her
past experience is  predictive  of  an  increased  risk  for  recurrence  of
debilitating anxiety, maladaptive behaviors and Adjustment Disorder  if  re-
exposed to the rigors of military training and service.  A complete copy  of
the BCMR Medical Consultant’s advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  that   based   on   the
documentation on file in the master personnel  records,  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation, and the discharge was within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge  authority.   Additionally,  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing, and she provided no facts warranting a change  to  her
reenlistment eligibility code.  Airmen are given an entry level  separation/
uncharacterized  service  characterization  when  separation  is   initiated
within the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The  Department  of
Defense determined if a member served less than 180 days  continuous  active
service, it would be unfair to the member and the  service  to  characterize
their limited service.  An  entry  level/uncharacterized  separation  should
not be viewed as negative and should not be confused  with  other  types  of
separation.  A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPRS  advisory  opinion  is  at
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for
review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no response (Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  Evidence has not been provided that  would
lead us to believe the applicant’s RE code is erroneous or unjust.  We  took
notice of the action taken to change the reason for discharge  to  one  that
more accurately  reflects  the  circumstances  surrounding  her  separation.
Notwithstanding this change, we are not inclined to favorably  consider  her
request to correct her RE code that could facilitate her  reentry  into  the
service.  The record  clearly  shows  that  shortly  after  her  entry  into
technical training, the applicant began to  experience  problems  associated
with  stress.   Based  on  the  evidence  in  the  record,  we  believe  her
separation was appropriate at that time.  She has provided no evidence  that
would lead us to conclude  that  she  now  would  be  able  to  successfully
function in the  highly  structured  military  environment.   Therefore,  we
agree with the assessment by the BCMR Medical Consultant in  this  case  and
find no basis to conclude the applicant’s RE code is  erroneous  or  unjust.
Accordingly, her request is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 11 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Member
                       Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2003-03047.

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 03.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Med Consultant, dated 20 Jan 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Feb 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.





      JOHN L. ROBUCK
      Panel Chair